Essential Reading

In Andernach about 50,000 prisoners of all ages were held in an open field surrounded by barbed wire. The men I guarded had no shelter and no blankets; many had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for excrement.

Using legal injunctions, Dov Zakheim’s lawyers forced this website to remove an article we posted with the same title; which tells us he may have something to hide. Seems like others also think so as this video indicates. Watch it while you still can

Fact or fantasy? Admiral Richard B. Byrd’s account of his flight over the North Pole and discovery of a “land beyond the poles” is legend. For those still unfamiliar with it we present his classic account and leave you to decide

The brilliant examination of the ‘Holocaust’ by Anthony Lawson has since been censored on the basis of a false Copyright infrigment. But as Lawson explains, this just another attempt to stiffle freedom of expression

With the ongoing inquest into the 7/7 terror attacks a correspondent asks: Where and who were Peter Powers’ agents in his mock bombings. Where did they go? Have they been eliminated from the enquiry OR ARE THEY THE ENQUIRY?

“Government offices are packed to the Plimsoll line with reams of reports, memos, plans, suggestions and enough generally useless papers to cover the State of California three times over. I have been reading a very high-level report, never mind its source, that sheds a very bright light on the past, present and the future of the United States’ actions in the Middle East. This report runs to about 150 pages and is filled with maps, charts, excerpts of intelligence intercepts from England, Russia, Iran, China, Turkey and Israel. It is one of the most revealing documents I have ever read but if I printed it in toto, I would be down at Gitmo in an orange jumpsuit being waterboarded by the beady-eyed perverts from the CIA’s Torture Brigade. This is an excerpt with only one lone map but I assure you that it is very important reading.

It shows, with great clarity, the role played by Vice President Dick Cheney, his Halliburton group, allied American and British oil companies, Israeli political and military entities and other such creatures in shaping our military and foreign policy. Read it and mourn for the escalation of the mindless economic wars, for the damage to America’s world image and see it as a monument to the colossal failure of the bankrupt Bush/Cheney politico-economic policies.

If you happened to have voted for Bush, perhaps you would be better off sticking your head into the oven and turning on the gas (apologies here to Abe Foxman).
Brian Harring, who writes for TBR News, has had the following brief comment published in the Washington Post. It makes an excellent précis:

The rationale behind the obvious concept, and probably the planning, for a U.S. military adventure into Syria is based entirely on economics, not military need. There is a great deal of oil in northern Iraq. Northern Iraq is Kurdish territory.

At the present time, there is no practical way to use the current Iraqi pipeline system to ship this oil out. This is due to the guerrilla activities against the pipeline system. The postulation is that if Syria were occupied by American troops, an oil pipeline could be built across that country to Israel and their port city of Haifa on the Mediterranean.

In this way, much needed oil can be accessed by both the United States and Israel, a potential breeding ground for pan-Muslim activists can be neutralized and the state of Israel will benefit, not only from oil revenues but from the removal of an old enemy.

Excerpts (see links at the end of the study for further background information)

“The rapid shrinking of international oil production has greatly alarmed responsible U.S. officials, who realize that the United States has become vulnerable to a serious diminution “ of vital oil.resources. Vice President Dick Cheney as a “prominent member of the government and a strong influence with both the office of the President and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld”……”has long recognized this looming threat and has been in year-long contact with important members of the American petroleum industry.” “As a strong advocate of the U.S. seizure of Iraqi oil fields with their immense untapped reserves…” Cheney was a powerful and very effective advocate of the Iraqi war. “Now, with the oppressive stalemate in Iraq and growing public disapproval of the war,” Cheney has hit upon a plan, already suggested to him by Israeli and industry spokespeople on his staff. This is to secure defensible pipeline capacity from the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraqi oil fields, through Syria or Jordan to the Mediterranean. “Jordan has been rejected because Israeli interests have expressed, very strongly, that such a pipeline should terminate at the Israeli port of Haifa.” The fact that a U.S. alliance with the Kurdish section of Iraq will only serve to severely antagonize Turkey, who has a hostile attitude towards the Kurds, “it has been jointly decided between the United States and Israel that Turkish connections, while important, are not as important as removing Syria as an enemy of Israel, providing a safe and easily controlled route for friendly Iraqi oil and, more important, to allow the free and unhindered passage of American military supplies and troops into Iraq without subjecting them to a possible military attack from the Iranians” who are armed with advanced Russian rocketry. The damage these rockets “could inflict on American, and British naval and civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf is considered as an unacceptable risk.”

“Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel’s northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements.”

From the report:

“Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would reduce the country’s cost of oil imports. This is currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia. There would also be a strategic justification for the project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in Israel’s close proximity would increase its fuel security and would address its major handicap, that is, its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away suppliers.

Paritzky has requested an assessment of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline’s current state, which ceased to operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it has not been in use for more than half a century. However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and Israel, through which the pipeline passes.

Iraqi consent would have been out of the question as long as the regime of Saddam Hussein was in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime” “will still require Syria’s consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel’s continued occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel’s mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil.”

“The Caspian Sea region has become a central focus point for untapped oil and natural gas resources from the southern portion of the former Soviet Union. Beginning in May 2005, oil from the southern sections of the Caspian Sea began pumping through a new pipeline (built by a BP-led consortium) to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan. The 8-year effort of Western capital, technology, and diplomacy had aimed to decrease reliance on Middle Eastern oil. However, in recent years, new oil finds and production performance in the Caspian region have not met levels that had been expected in the 1990s. At any rate, the Caspian Sea’s production levels, even at their peak, will be much smaller than OPEC countries’ output. Production levels are expected to reach 4 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2015, compared to 45 million bbl/d for the OPEC countries in that year”

“The Destabilization of areas viewed as vital for the unimpeded flow of Mid-Eastern oil”
An overview:

“The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region’s total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world’s total oil production.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region’s existing pipeline infrastructure.

Because the region’s pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It’s unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. <>From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.” <>

“At the suggestion of the American Vice President, Cheney, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, with the technical assistance of both the Israeli MOSSAD and AMAN, have fomented domestic civil strife inside the French Republic.” “MOSSAD penetration of dissident Muslim groups in France, permitted the technical coordination…” ” of the attacks in: Paris, Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, and Toulouse. Later, the closely coordinated rioting spread further to Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirk, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.” “Funds for this were supplied entirely by the CIA and technical assistance by the MOSSAD was further enhanced by the use of a cell-phone system believed to be secure from French interdiction….” “The Israeli official attitude towards France is coloured by the perception of barely-disguised anti-Semitism on the part of French officialdom as manifested by” specific incidents listed. “Thusly, the hostility of the French population against resident Arabs is guaranteed,”… “to permit military action in the former French colony of Syria, without let or hindrance….”

Summation:
“* The Turkish port of Ceyhan is on the Mediterranean Sea north of the Syrian border.

* Since the Turkish Parliament refused US invasion troops overland access to Iraq via Turkey at the last minute in February 2003, Turkey has been re-evaluated by Washington as an unreliable ally.

* Now that Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, bordering on Turkey, and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea, are no longer part of the Soviet Union, Turkey is less strategically important anyway, as a US ally.

* The pipelines from Central Asia to the Black Sea are strategically vulnerable to Russia blockading the Bosphorus.

* When Syria and Iran are either destabilized or invaded and come under US domination, Kurdish Northern Iran and Kurdish Syria could join with Kurdish Iraq in a Greater Kurdistan. This may (or has?) been held out to the Kurds as a carrot to encourage their buy-in to the larger plan.

* This larger plan would be: To build a new, or refursibh an existing, oil and probably also a gas pipeline from the Kurdish Northern Iranian shores of the Caspian Sea, through Kurdish Iran, into Kurdish Iraq, to link up with the Mosul-Haifa pipeline through Kurdish Syria into Northern Israel. A pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.

* Via these mega-pipelines, all the oil and gas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Greater Kurdistan (Northern Iran and Northern Iraq) could flow, safely guarded by the Kurds, from Central Asia into Israel and the Mediterranean.

* To open a secure line of communication and supply for U.S. mideasst forces now in Iraq from the secure Mediterranean area, avoiding the dangers of sending military vessels into the Persian Gulf where they could be vulnerable to rocket attacks from Iran.

* When (not if) Turkey throws the US out of its airbase at Incirlik, the US could relocate to a new base in former Northern Iraq, soon to become Kurdistan, which is far more strategically located to dominate the region, and this new airbase could also help the Kurds guard the pipelines down to Haifa.

· Building this new US military facility would provide billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to KBR and Halliburton. Cheney’s stock options would be worth even more than they are now.

* In order to neutralize any French assistance to their former colony of Syria and to anger the French population against the Arabs, joint CIA/Mossad operations have created and maintained massive and very destructive civil unrest in France by dissident Arab youths. These action also serve as a warning to other countries such as England and Germany, that have large Moslem populations that similar “civil unrest” can just as easily plague their countries.”